Say goodbye to your pudendum

[MsAmerica]

Taking the ‘Shame Part’ Out of Female Anatomy
Anatomists have bid farewell to “pudendum"
By Rachel E. Gross

In the beginning, shame knew no sex. First-century Roman writers used “pudendum” to mean the genitals of men, women and animals. But it was women to whom the shame stuck.

In 1543, the word made an appearance alongside an odd illustration in an anatomical atlas by Andreas Vesalius, a Flemish physician sometimes called the “father of modern anatomy.” The image, although labeled a human uterus, looks unmistakably like a penis, but with a tuft of curly pubic hair near the head, reflecting the idea that women were just men with imperfect, internal body parts. (Also, recall the dearth of female corpses.)

A century later, a Dutch anatomist named Regnier de Graaf highlighted the role of the clitoris in female sexuality. “If these parts of the pudendum had not been endowed with such an exquisite sensitivity to pleasure,” he wrote, “no woman would be willing to take upon herself the irksome nine-months-long business of gestation, the painful and often fatal process of expelling the fetus, and the worrisome and care-ridden task of raising children.”

www.nytimes.com/2021/09/21/science/pudendum-women-anatomy.html

indianexpress.com/article/technology/science/shame-part-female-anatomy-pudendum-7526800/

Erm.

The fact the word vagina is from Latin for 'sheath'. A widely used word. Essentially meaning it's a place for men to put their penis inside.

That seems worse? I mean if we're changing words now.

Who is Rachel E Goss?

What about Allison Draper in 2020? It took me about 30 seconds to find this online abstract:

The anatomical terminology for the female external genitalia, “pudendum,” was removed from the second edition of the Terminologia Anatomica (2019) in response to opposition of the Latin root of the word (pudēre meaning “to be ashamed”). This recent revision provides an opportunity to discuss sex inequality within the history of anatomy. This viewpoint article compares the evolution of modern anatomical terminology toward clarity and precision to the stagnant non-descriptive naming of the “pudendum” to illuminate a long timeline of the societal misperception of women. Claudius Galen (129–216 BC) used the Greek αιδοίον/aidoion (from αἰδώς/aidos meaning shame, respect, or modesty) to describe both the male and female external genitalia, as he believed that men and women were isomorphic, the difference lying only in the positioning of the reproductive organs. Galen, however, was not always impartial in his comparisons, repeatedly describing the female as inferior to the male. Andreas Vesalius (1543), whose illustrations greatly influenced the study of anatomy, later drew the female genitalia as Galen described them, as internal equivalents of male genitalia, codifying female shame within anatomical terminology. While renaming “pudendum” is a noble step in support of women, changing one word will not undo generations of implicit bias and institutional oppression. We can, however, work to create culturally and psychosocially competent future physicians through the integrative study of sex and gender issues and anatomy. Through an understanding of historical context, physicians can refocus their actions on providing care in a way that leaves the patient feeling proud, not ashamed.

No comment on content from me btw. Just saying that it was published last year.

I note no-one seems to want to tell anyone what the replacement word is. Presumably to delay the next round of complaints.

I really hate people like this Allison Draper character. I find her attitude and behaviour incredibly offensive. Rather than enjoy and be fascinated by quirks of etymology that no-one knows, she's determined to invent reasons why modern words should be burnt.

I can't see how any English speaker makes any "shame" connection with pudendum - the only related word I can think of is "impudence" (ie shamelessness), but I had to think hard about that after Allison pointing it out. If she hadn't pointed it out no-one would notice.

And her only aim is to promote herself, and other similar grifters who are not apparently capable of more productive work. I know it, she knows it, but too many people are afraid to tell people claiming noble intent to "fuck off".

If you don't tell her to fuck off now, she's got a job for life going through every other "term that reflects antiquated notions" in the language.

She's like the linguistic equivalent of Father Liam (I think) in Father Ted, demonstrating the shoddy workmanship of everything in the room.

I really hate people like this Allison Draper character. I find her attitude and behaviour incredibly offensive. Rather than enjoy and be fascinated by quirks of etymology that no-one knows, she's determined to invent reasons why modern words should be burnt.

Thanks for this, NecessaryScene. I have been trying to articulate why I find this kind of thing so annoying and you have expressed it really well.

Thanks, PaleBlueMoonlight. Woke up feeling ranty. If you like it, I've got more. Was having second thoughts about posting it, but you've encouraged me. Of we go...

I do kind of love that the article lets Moxham and Draper frame themselves as "noble heros" against an uncaring world. Most people they talk to don't seem to give a shit.

But "He couldn’t tackle all of sexism within anatomy, but removing this one troublesome word seemed like an easy task". What a star.

Hope you're all grateful for this pair's sterling efforts. Not like women had any real issues going on in 2019 in the medical field, eh?

And the selective archaeology is also amusing. Pudendum was not originally historically a female-specific word. It's largely fallen out of use, due to not being terribly specific, and hence useful for modern anatomy, but where it is used directly it is still mainly used for women. But not totally, as the article notes - what with there being various "pudendal" things also in men.

And being a layman, I certainly thought it applied to both sexes. Wiktionary concurs: "An external genital organ in a human; especially a woman’s vulva." So we're down to medical references specifically choosing to only use it technically for women. And even then the use of "pudendal" in males shows that it's not female-specific.

So all the claims about "sexism" are basically constructed bullshit.

You can't simultaneously claim that the original meaning matters, but not the original application. This was never woman-specific shame!

This is someone working with intent to actively "problematise" something to create a problem that is not there, and has never been there.

Anyway I don't give a real damn about this particular word - it is archaic, and I can imagine it falling out of use anyway.

But it's the principle. I might choose to give someone £50. But I'm not going to set the precedent that people can demand £50 from me.

I'm terrified of giving people like this power. That's the objection here. People like this are dangerous authoritarians. They're "political officers" lurking around any field, not people actually contributing productively. They are the sort of people coming for the word "woman" to tell you why it's non-problematic.

It's much easier to say "no" to them the first time than the 10th, or the 100th or the 1000th.

Just noticed "There was no equivalent word for male genitals" in the article. JFC. Yes there is! It's the same word! It's just that modern anatomy books are choosing not to use it. Idiocy.

Anyway, maybe we should set up the Gerund Preservation Society. There are too few remaining Latin gerunds in English.

I do love my "-endum" endings. Basically the "-ing" suffix to make a noun from a verb, so someone's "pudendum" would their "shaming".

(Has Draper ever had a single Latin class? Is she even remotely qualified to be discussing this?)

It's just that modern anatomy books are choosing not to use it

And even that's not fucking true cos they are using it as an adjective in men for specific parts.

There aren't enough headbanging emojis.

I just wonder if @MsAmerica will be back to comment on the thread started? Or if plopping and running was the aplha and omega of intentions?

Semantics? Nope...

I can't see how any English speaker makes any "shame" connection with pudendum
Anyone who looks it up will know. I've known the etymology since I was at school, and it's always really annoyed me.

no-one seems to want to tell anyone what the replacement word is
"she learned that the Latin term for the vulva... was pudendum". 'Vulva' is correct in both medical English and medical Latin.

I agree that "vulva" is probably a better word when that's what you mean.

I was querying what the replacement is for "pudendum" in the more general non-sexed sense.

But I guess that's a daft question because she's convinced herself it is a female-specific term. Despite all the uses like "pudendal artery" showing that's not the case.

Mind you, maybe my layperson's anatomy is wonky. I always thought of "pudendum" as meaning that part of the body, irrespective of genitalia, rather than a word for actual genitalia.

Like a Barbie/GI Joe doll would have a pudendum, despite no actual genitalia - the slight bulge/protrusion at the crotch.

Possibly not useful for actual real anatomy though :)

*I really hate people like this Allison Draper character. I find her attitude and behaviour incredibly offensive. Rather than enjoy and be fascinated by quirks of etymology that no-one knows, she's determined to invent reasons why modern words should be burnt.

I can't see how any English speaker makes any "shame" connection with pudendum - the only related word I can think of is "impudence" (ie shamelessness), but I had to think hard about that after Allison pointing it out. If she hadn't pointed it out no-one would notice.

And her only aim is to promote herself, and other similar grifters who are not apparently capable of more productive work. I know it, she knows it, but too many people are afraid to tell people claiming noble intent to "fuck off".*

I'd like to thank her for letting me know that a misogynistic word has been quietly expunged from the medical lexicon.

Possibly not useful for actual real anatomy though No. You are right. Pudenda is for both male and female, just 'mostly female'.

It just means the external genital organs of a human being. For some reason it became more attached to female 'bits' than male!

For some reason it became more attached to female 'bits' than male!

And I don't believe there would have been any actual "misogyny" at any point.

It may well have been the convoluted indirect result of some sort of "default male" thing, or more attention being paid to male anatomy.

But I can imagine that going the other way with pudendum remaining male-only and having a different word for female. (That's what happened with the word "man" itself - it was originally generic and ended up male-only).

I doubt at any stage in that evolution anyone was thinking about the meaning of the word, or anyone was ever suggesting that female genitals specifically were shameful.

I agree this is sloppy terminology - saying "pudendum" when you mean "vulva" is probably unhelpful in a similar way to saying "vagina" would be.

Making sure vulva is used for specifically female anatomy, clarifying that pudendum is generic and leaving all the non-sexed "pudendals" would make sense - helping get rid of the "female" misconception.

But they seem determined to cling to that "female shame" thing and trying to eliminate the word altogether. Wilfully selective.

You can't have it both ways. Claiming it's misogyny and try to eliminate the non-sexed uses.

And you only have to ook at any urban dictonary to see that misgyny in action!

And we aren't supposed to know about the root of 'man' - shush!

I always thought it was a fancy word for cock and balls!

There are just a host of unwarranted assumptions in thinking like this. One being that because a word was used in a certain way, it still carries all those connotations. Even if no one really knows about them. Another being that removal of words will somehow remedy problems like shame which have been magically transmitted through the language.

In this case it's hardly a common word anyway, I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone actually say it. It's use tends to be literary, often in contexts where it's being used because it's archaic.

@NecessaryScene

Just noticed "There was no equivalent word for male genitals" in the article. JFC. Yes there is! It's the same word! It's just that modern anatomy books are choosing not to use it. Idiocy.

Anyway, maybe we should set up the Gerund Preservation Society. There are too few remaining Latin gerunds in English.

I do love my "-endum" endings. Basically the "-ing" suffix to make a noun from a verb, so someone's "pudendum" would their "shaming".

(Has Draper ever had a single Latin class? Is she even remotely qualified to be discussing this?)

I'd join this. You should set it up.

The fact the word vagina is from Latin for 'sheath'. A widely used word. Essentially meaning it's a place for men to put their penis inside.

That seems worse? I mean if we're changing words now.

But... that is at least one function of the vagina isn't it? It's a sex organ, for having sex and getting the sperm some of the way to the egg. As well as for giving birth. Of course you don't have to use it for those things but it's not the same kind of wrong as a word that means "shameful".

I agree that trying to get rid of all words with dodgy roots is annoying, but we do get rid of some over time for good reasons.

One that always makes me cringe is "denigrate" yet no one in public life ever seems to mind using it. In that case it may not have a racist origin but it sounds like it does, which is kind of worse.

As an aside I hate the word pudendum, wherever it came from. It always conjures up a vision of an incredibly posh and awkward teacher trying to teach sex ed - even though that's not based on my own experiences! I can't see it written down without hearing it in a ridiculous plummy voice.

PYOOOO-dendum!

It always sounds sweaty to me and like it would smell really manky.

It's really interesting seeing where words come from - but, yes, this seems like a lot of fuss about something that isn't that big a deal.

There are just a host of unwarranted assumptions in thinking like this. One being that because a word was used in a certain way, it still carries all those connotations. Even if no one really knows about them. Another being that removal of words will somehow remedy problems like shame which have been magically transmitted through the language.

No, what you're getting are genuine ground-level/ user-level responses from people who aren't biologists or medics or logophiles but still have strong reactions to the words we use. I know you think we're stupid, Lobster — that comes through loud and clear — but none of us has asserted that getting rid of the word pudendum will get rid of shame. Perhaps you'd retract that. You're allowed to think we're ignorant or silly or whatever, but accusing us of saying things we haven't said is a step too far.

I think the article was pretty clear about it's thinking, I didn't say anything about whatever it is you think.

I'm hardly the only person whose commented that thinks it's a silly idea so I'm not sure why you have a beef with me in particular.

Because of the words you wrote. You know, the suggestion that some of us on this thread think that the removal of the world pudendum will 'somehow remedy problems like shame.' No one's said that.